Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment Lawyer in New York

Representing Employees Pressured by Supervisors, Executives, Owners, and Partners

Quid pro quo sexual harassment happens when a person with workplace authority ties a job benefit or a job consequence to sexual or romantic conduct. The phrase means "this for that." The question in these cases is not only what was said. It is who controlled the job when it was said. A compliment from a coworker and a compliment from the person who sets your schedule are not the same event. When the person making an advance also controls your pay, shifts, assignments, promotions, or continued employment, the law weighs the pressure that authority creates.

Key Takeaways

• Quid pro quo harassment is the use of workplace authority to condition benefits or impose consequences based on sexual or romantic conduct.
• No explicit threat is required. Control over compensation, scheduling, assignments, promotions, or termination can create the pressure by itself.
• Apparent participation in a relationship does not end the analysis. What matters is whether the employee could realistically refuse, report, or leave without professional consequences.
• Where a supervisor's harassment produces a tangible job action, employer exposure is substantially greater than in cases involving offensive conduct alone.
• New York State law no longer requires proof that conduct was severe or pervasive, and the New York City Human Rights Law reaches further still.
• An arbitration agreement may no longer keep the dispute out of court. Federal law now lets an employee alleging a qualifying sexual harassment claim decline to enforce a predispute arbitration agreement.
• Digital messages, scheduling records, performance history, and the timing of changed treatment usually decide these cases.
• Phillips & Associates has nearly 2,000 employment cases litigated in court and handled more than 2,000 sexual harassment matters.
• The firm's litigation reputation with leading management-side defense firms, employers, and insurance carriers often creates leverage to resolve matters privately and confidentially, frequently before a lawsuit is filed.

What Is Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment?

Quid pro quo sexual harassment occurs when submission to or rejection of sexual or romantic conduct is used, expressly or implicitly, as the basis for an employment benefit, a threat, or a decision.

Authority alone does not establish the claim. A supervisor may ask a subordinate to dinner without violating the law. What converts the conduct into a legal claim is the link, stated or understood, between the employee's response and what happens to the job.

That link is often unspoken. In my experience, it is more common for an employee to understand the arrangement than to be told it. Nobody says the words. The schedule simply improves when she is responsive and worsens when she is not.

Quid pro quo is one of two recognized categories of workplace sexual harassment. The other is a hostile work environment. A single situation frequently contains both, and the two often run on the same timeline with retaliation added at the end.

Why Power Dynamics Decide These Cases

In nearly every quid pro quo matter, the central figure controls the terms of another person's livelihood. The conduct rarely begins with a proposition. It begins with authority.

A supervisor who repeatedly asks a subordinate out is not situated like a peer who does the same, because the subordinate has to calculate what refusal will cost. Employees describe the same internal arithmetic to me across every industry the firm handles. If I say no, do my hours change? Will my review suffer? Am I still up for the promotion? Do I still have a job?

Courts and agencies examine whether the employee's response was genuinely voluntary by looking at the surrounding authority, the pressure, the workplace consequences, and the ability to refuse. Even where an employee outwardly went along with dinners, messages, or a relationship, the analysis asks whether she realistically felt free to refuse, to report, or to end it without consequences at work.

Apparent consent is not the end of the inquiry when one party holds the other party's income and advancement in their hands.

Who Commits Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment?

Quid pro quo allegations most often involve direct supervisors and managers, C-suite executives, founders and business owners, physicians and medical practice owners, and lawyers, particularly law firm owners and partners. What those roles share is concentrated and often unreviewable control over another person's job conditions. The pattern repeats because the leverage repeats.

The harasser's formal role also changes the legal analysis, which is why one of the first questions the firm asks is not what happened but who the person was.

Harassment by a Coworker Without Workplace Authority

Where the conduct comes from a coworker who holds no authority over your job, employer liability is generally analyzed by asking what the employer did once it learned what was happening. The employer is generally liable where it knew or should have known of the conduct and failed to take appropriate corrective action. In practice, that means the employer's response after learning of the conduct usually becomes the central issue, depending on the facts.

Harassment by a Supervisor With Authority Over the Employee's Job

Stricter standards may apply where the person who engaged in the conduct was empowered to take tangible job actions. Where the harassment culminates in a tangible job action such as termination, demotion, reduced hours, or loss of assignments, employer exposure is generally substantially greater. In those circumstances, the job consequence itself can establish liability, and the Faragher/Ellerth defense becomes unavailable.

Harassment by an Owner, Partner, President, or Other High Official

Where the person who engaged in the conduct is an owner, partner, president, or other high official, that person's conduct may be treated as the employer's own, because the individual functions as the employer's proxy. Internal reporting channels often do not exist above this person, which, depending on the facts, changes the reporting analysis entirely.

One employer defense deserves particular attention here. Under Title VII, the Faragher/Ellerth defense can allow an employer to avoid liability for supervisor harassment by showing it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct the conduct and that the employee unreasonably failed to use the employer's complaint procedure. That defense is unavailable once the harassment produces a tangible job action, and the New York State Human Rights Law eliminated it altogether in its 2019 amendments. An employer arguing that you should have used its internal process no longer has that argument under state law.

Founder-led and owner-operated businesses carry a distinct risk profile. When one person is at once the harasser, the highest authority, and the entity that would receive any internal complaint, the ordinary reporting channels collapse. There is no human resources function sitting above the owner. Employees in those workplaces routinely delay reporting for exactly that reason, and the delay gets used against them later even though it reflects the structure of the company rather than the merits of the claim.

New York courts have recognized how much that structure matters. In Vitanza v. Savta NYC, New York State Supreme Court, New York County, Index No. 157125/2025, before Hon. Phaedra F. Perry-Bond, the court denied dismissal of significant portions of a sexual harassment and retaliation case, holding that an owner who knew of the misconduct could face aiding-and-abetting liability.

How Does Quid Pro Quo Harassment Usually Start?

Quid pro quo harassment usually develops through a recognizable sequence rather than a single proposition, and that sequence is fairly described as workplace grooming. It rarely arrives fully formed. I see the same progression across every industry the firm handles.

It starts with favoritism and personal attention. It moves to boundary testing, which looks like comments about appearance, late-night texts, requests to meet outside work, and small physical contact framed as friendly. It escalates when the attention is tolerated. It turns coercive when the response changes. Better treatment follows engagement. Worse treatment follows distance.

That sequence matters for litigation because it generates evidence. Messages sent at midnight, a shifting tone across an email thread, sudden changes in assignments, and coworkers who noticed the favoritism all become part of the record. Employees who preserve those communications early are in a far stronger position than employees who wait until after a termination and try to reconstruct the history from memory.

Real-World Examples of Quid Pro Quo Harassment

Quid pro quo harassment looks different in a restaurant than it does in a law firm, but the structure underneath is identical: someone who controls the job links that job to a personal response. The settings change. The structure does not.

• A bar manager controls sections and therefore tips. He asks a server out. She declines politely. Over the next three weeks she moves from Saturday nights to Tuesday lunches, and her income drops by roughly half. Nobody writes anything down.
• A law firm partner staffs a junior associate on his matters, keeps her late, and begins texting after hours about things unrelated to work. She stops replying. Her hours on his cases dry up, her review that year is the first negative one in her file, and she is told she is not tracking toward partnership.
• A security company supervisor assigns posts and approves overtime. He tells an officer that being "friendly" makes scheduling easier. When she reports him, she is moved to an overnight post at a site an hour further from her home.
• A medical practice owner tells a nurse that he can adjust her schedule around her childcare if she joins him for dinner. She goes twice. The third time she says no, and her request for a schedule change is denied without explanation.
• An executive assistant reports to a chief executive who comments on her appearance and asks intrusive personal questions. She works alone with him most days. There is no human resources department above him to complain to, because he owns the company.
• Two colleagues date. One of them is later promoted into the other's reporting line. When the employee ends the relationship, the assignments deteriorate, the praise stops, and a performance improvement plan appears within a month.

None of these employees was handed an explicit ultimatum. Every one of them understood the arrangement.

Scheduling as Currency in Restaurant, Bar, and Security Jobs

In schedule-driven industries, the exchange is often literal, and the economic injury is immediate, because the person making the advance also decides how much you earn.

Restaurant and bar managers control sections, shifts, and therefore tips. Security supervisors control posts, hours, and overtime. Go out with me and the weekend shifts open up. Stop answering my messages, and the schedule changes. A server moved from Saturday nights to Tuesday lunches after declining a manager's advances has suffered a concrete economic injury, and in supervisor cases that kind of scheduling change can be the tangible employment action that fixes employer liability.

These matters also show how retaliation works below the level of formal discipline. Reduced hours, undesirable posts, isolation from lucrative assignments, and sudden scrutiny usually come before any write-up or termination. Employees in tipped and hourly positions feel those changes in their income right away, which is precisely why scheduling authority is such an effective instrument of pressure.

Quid Pro Quo Harassment in Law Firms

Law firms produce quid pro quo claims with uncomfortable regularity, because partners hold unusual and largely unreviewable power over the people beneath them. I say that as someone who has represented lawyers and legal staff in these matters.

A partner influences an associate's assignments, hours, reviews, partnership prospects, and references in a profession where reputation travels fast, and the lateral market runs on relationships. Paralegals, legal assistants, and junior associates who work closely with a partner, often late and often one-on-one, are structurally exposed.

The same dynamics that make these cases common in law firms make them underreported. Junior lawyers fear that a complaint against a partner will follow them for a career. Firms without meaningful management above a founding partner reproduce the owner-operator problem exactly. When these matters do surface, they tend to come with extensive digital records, because the profession runs on email and messaging, and that documentation is often decisive.

When a Workplace Relationship Becomes Harassment

A relationship at work is not automatically unlawful. The legal issues arise because one participant controlled the other's job, and because the workplace treatment changed when the relationship changed.

This is the category the firm describes as workplace relationship harassment. It covers situations where a relationship, or pressure toward one, intersects with supervisory authority. The relationship may have looked consensual to everyone watching, including at times to the participants.

These matters can involve quid pro quo harassment, hostile work environment conduct, and retaliation at different points on one timeline. The unifying feature is that the law evaluates power and pressure rather than labels. Whether the parties called it dating, an affair, or a friendship matters far less than whether the employee could refuse, report, or leave without professional consequences.

What Happens When the Relationship Ends?

Retaliation most often begins at the ending, which is why the period immediately after a rejection or a breakup produces more evidence than any other stage of these cases.

When an employee ends a relationship with a supervisor, rejects continued advances, or sets a boundary, the workplace response often changes fast. Assignments deteriorate. Performance that was praised is suddenly questioned. Hours drop. Exclusion begins. Sometimes the employee is terminated outright. Sometimes conditions become intolerable enough that she resigns, which can support a constructive discharge theory.

Timing carries substantial evidentiary weight, but the legal theory depends on what the employee communicated and why the treatment changed. Ending a personal relationship, standing alone, is not automatically protected activity under every discrimination statute. Rejecting continued sexual demands, objecting to harassment, reporting coercive conduct, or making clear that workplace benefits should not depend on a personal relationship may all constitute protected opposition.

A schedule that changes immediately afterward can support causation, pretext, quid pro quo harassment, or sex discrimination depending on the facts. The strongest cases pair a documented pattern of pressure with a documented change in treatment and evidence connecting that change to the employee's rejection, objection, or complaint.

Warning Signs of Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment

• A supervisor who repeatedly asks you out after you have declined once
• Personal messages arriving late at night from someone who controls your schedule
• Requests to move conversations to WhatsApp, Signal, or a personal number
• Invitations to meet alone that are framed as mentorship or networking
• Comments about your appearance from someone who approves your reviews
• Being told, directly or indirectly, that being "friendly" makes scheduling easier
• Visible favoritism toward colleagues who accept a supervisor's attention
• Job opportunities that appear right after you accept an invitation
• Schedule, section, post, or assignment changes that follow a refusal
• A first negative review after years of positive ones
• Sudden documentation appearing in your file after you set a boundary
• Being excluded from meetings, projects, or client contact you previously had
• Working for an owner or founder with no reporting structure above them
• Being asked to sign something quickly after raising a concern

Do I Have a Quid Pro Quo Claim?

• Authority. The person engaged in the conduct held authority over your employment conditions, whether as a supervisor, manager, executive, owner, partner, or other decision-maker.
• Sexual or romantic conduct. The conduct was sexual in nature or involved pressure toward a romantic relationship.
• A link to the job. Submission to or rejection of that conduct was used, expressly or implicitly, as the basis for a benefit, a threat, or a decision.
• What happened next. A tangible job action followed, such as termination, demotion, reduced hours, lost assignments, a denied promotion, or a schedule change with real economic effect. Where no tangible action occurred, the conduct may still support a hostile work environment or retaliation claim.

Where the harasser is an owner, partner, or other high official, that person's conduct may be attributed to the employer directly. Where a supervisor's harassment culminates in a tangible job action, certain employer defenses may not be available.

Which Laws Apply in New York?

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 recognizes quid pro quo sexual harassment as a form of unlawful sex discrimination. Claims are filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and litigated in federal court, most often the Southern District of New York or the Eastern District of New York.

The New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), following its 2019 amendments, no longer requires that conduct be severe or pervasive. The New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) asks whether the employee was treated less well because of sex and is construed independently of and more liberally than federal law. Under those standards, conduct a federal court might once have dismissed as insufficient can support a viable claim for employees who worked in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, or Staten Island.

One further change matters a great deal here. The federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act allows a person alleging a qualifying sexual harassment or sexual assault dispute to elect not to enforce a predispute arbitration agreement or joint-action waiver. Employers can no longer assume an arbitration clause will keep every sexual harassment dispute out of court. If you signed an arbitration agreement when you were hired, that is worth a conversation rather than an assumption.

Employees who worked in New Jersey may have claims under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) instead.

How Long Do I Have to File?

Under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), the deadline is generally 3 years in court, and 3 years with the Commission for gender-based and sexual harassment claims. Those claims are generally brought in New York State Supreme Court or before the NYC Commission on Human Rights.

Under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), the deadline is generally 3 years in court, and 3 years with the Division. Those claims are generally brought in New York State Supreme Court or before the NYS Division of Human Rights.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employee generally has 300 days to file a charge with the EEOC. Those charges are generally filed with the EEOC New York District Office, and the matter then proceeds in the SDNY or the EDNY.

Filing an internal complaint with human resources does not extend any of these deadlines. Phillips & Associates identifies which deadline and which forum applies before any filing is made.

The applicable deadline and filing forum depend on the governing law, the date and location of the conduct, and the specific procedural history. Employees should have their individual timeline reviewed rather than relying solely on general website information.

What Evidence Matters in a Quid Pro Quo Case?

The evidence that decides these cases is usually the ordinary record of how you were scheduled, paid, and reviewed, set against the record of the pressure. Preserve it before you lose access to it, because employer systems can be shut off within an hour of a termination.

Save complete message threads rather than isolated screenshots, including texts, WhatsApp, Signal, Slack, Teams, and email. Keep screenshots that show dates and identify the sender. Save your schedules, section or post assignments, timesheets, pay records, performance reviews, calendar entries, and anything showing what your treatment looked like before and after you refused. Write down who was present and what they saw. Keep the messages you sent friends or family at the time, because contemporaneous accounts carry weight.

Preserve records lawfully. Do not take privileged, confidential, proprietary, patient, or customer information, and do not access accounts or devices you are not authorized to use. Recording laws vary by jurisdiction, so speak with a lawyer before recording any conversation.

One more thing. If you are handed a severance agreement or a release shortly after raising a concern, do not sign it that day. In Espinal v. Columbia University, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied a motion to dismiss and held that a release signed under pressure and without counsel was not knowing or voluntary. That question is fact-specific, and it is far easier to protect than to unwind.

How Phillips & Associates Handles Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment Cases

Phillips & Associates is an employee-side employment litigation firm that combines the resources and litigation capacity of a substantial practice with partner-led, boutique-style representation. Every accepted matter receives a dedicated litigation team led or supervised by a partner or senior litigator, and the same team remains responsible for the matter through resolution.

Each team is supported by an associate attorney and a paralegal. Together, they develop the facts, preserve and analyze the evidence, evaluate damages, and determine the negotiation and litigation strategy. Many of the firm’s partners have litigated sexual-harassment, discrimination, and retaliation matters together for more than a decade, and the firm’s attorneys bring more than 200 years of combined employment-law experience.

How the Firm Builds a Quid Pro Quo Case

In a quid pro quo sexual-harassment matter, the firm typically reconstructs two timelines side by side. The first tracks the requests, pressure, attention, promises, threats, or sexual conduct. The second tracks the employee’s treatment at work, including changes in scheduling, compensation, assignments, evaluations, promotion opportunities, discipline, or continued employment. The point at which those timelines converge may provide critical evidence that a workplace benefit or consequence was tied to accepting, rejecting, or ending the conduct.

Depending on the facts and procedural stage, the team may review or seek text messages, emails, Teams, Slack, WhatsApp, and Signal communications; photographs and metadata; calendars; scheduling-system data; timekeeping records; payroll information; personnel files; performance reviews; and internal communications among decision-makers. In cases involving hourly employees, hospitality workers, healthcare workers, security personnel, or others whose income depends on shifts and assignments, scheduling records may be among the strongest evidence in the case.

Why Workplace Authority Matters

Phillips & Associates focuses on cases involving workplace power and authority. Quid pro quo claims frequently involve supervisors, executives, owners, physicians, law firm partners, hospitality managers, and other decision-makers who control an employee’s pay, shifts, assignments, advancement, or job security.

The firm examines not only what was said or requested, but also who had the power to act, whether the employee could realistically refuse, what the employee understood would happen if they said no, and what changed afterward. A direct threat is not always necessary. The relationship between the parties, the decision-maker’s authority, the timing of workplace changes, and the employer’s internal communications may reveal whether an employment benefit or consequence was tied to personal or sexual conduct.

Litigation Experience That Creates Leverage

Phillips & Associates has litigated approximately 2,000 employment cases in court. Its attorneys have appeared before more than 110 U.S. District Judges and more than 70 U.S. Magistrate Judges, including nearly every currently sitting District Judge in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and have obtained published decisions cited by other courts.

The firm has litigated against more than 550 distinct management-side defense firms, including Jackson Lewis, Littler Mendelson, Ogletree Deakins, Seyfarth Shaw, Morgan Lewis, and Proskauer Rose. It has the capacity to fund sustained litigation, retain qualified experts and investigators where appropriate, take the depositions needed to develop the record, oppose dispositive motions, and try the case when a fair resolution cannot be reached.

Employers, insurers, and defense counsel assess a quid pro quo claim differently when the employee’s law firm is prepared to obtain internal records, question the relevant decision-makers, test the employer’s explanation, and present the evidence in court. That litigation readiness can create leverage for confidential resolutions, including matters resolved before a public lawsuit is filed.

Recognition and Fee Structure

Phillips & Associates is ranked in Band 3 by Chambers and Partners in the 2026 Chambers USA Guide for Labor and Employment: Mainly Plaintiffs in New York. The firm is also ranked in the 2026 edition of Best Law Firms for Litigation, Labor and Employment in New York City.

The firm handles accepted matters on a contingency basis. There are no attorney fees unless Phillips & Associates recovers compensation for the client.

High-Profile and Confidential Matters Involving Powerful People

Phillips & Associates represents employees and survivors in high-profile and confidential matters involving executives, founders, business owners, law firm partners, physicians, celebrities, public figures, high-net-worth individuals, and powerful institutions. In these cases, money, influence, workplace authority, and institutional protection can intensify the pressure on someone who rejects, resists, ends, or reports misconduct.

The firm and its attorneys have represented clients in publicly filed matters involving allegations against Sean Combs, Harvey Weinstein, Kanye West, and Maksud Agadjani, the founder and owner of TraxNYC who appeared in Uncut Gems. The firm also handles confidential matters involving assistants, professionals, household employees, and workers in entertainment, media, finance, law, healthcare, hospitality, and private-household settings. The publicly named matters involve allegations that have not necessarily been adjudicated or proven. 

Senior attorneys lead dedicated litigation teams that address evidence preservation, witness strategy, damages, confidentiality, institutional investigations, reputational consequences, and litigation against sophisticated defendants and defense counsel. The team focuses on the evidence rather than the prominence of the person involved: who held authority, how that authority was used, what the employee did in response, and what changed afterward.

Whether the accused person is a shift manager, corporate executive, law firm partner, physician, business owner, or public figure, the central question remains the same: was workplace authority used to obtain personal or sexual conduct, or to punish the employee for refusing, resisting, or ending it?

Case Results

• $2,375,000 for an executive subjected to a sustained campaign of unwanted advances, solicitation of sex, and sexually charged comments by a senior executive after a prior consensual relationship ended, followed by retaliation for refusing. Resolved at pre-suit mediation
• $1,200,000 for an executive assistant to a chief executive who was subjected to sexual harassment and exposure to pornography and then lost her job duties after she complained.
• $1,000,000 for an executive terminated on pretext after rejecting a senior partner's repeated advances, resolved through pre-suit mediation.
• $302,500 for a logistics specialist who faced quid pro quo harassment, sexual harassment, race and gender discrimination, retaliation, and unlawful termination by the company's owner. Resolved at private mediation.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does my boss have to say it out loud for it to be quid pro quo harassment?

No. The link between your response and your job can be implicit. In most of the matters Phillips & Associates handles, nothing was ever stated as an ultimatum. The schedule improved when the employee was responsive and worsened when she was not, and everyone involved understood what that meant.

What if I went out with him at first?

That does not end the claim. The analysis asks whether you realistically felt free to refuse, to report, or to end it without consequences at work. Apparent consent carries much less weight when one person controls the other's income and advancement. What usually matters more is what changed after you stopped.

What if my hours were cut but I was never fired?

A schedule change with real economic effect can be a tangible employment action. A server moved from Saturday nights to Tuesday lunches has lost income just as surely as someone who was demoted. In schedule-driven industries, this is the most common form the injury takes. Phillips & Associates subpoenas the scheduling and timekeeping systems in these matters, because the software usually records the change more clearly than any witness remembers it.

The owner is the harasser. Who do I report to?

Often there is no one, and that is a recognized problem rather than a weakness in your case. When the owner is simultaneously the harasser, the highest authority, and the recipient of any complaint, the reporting structure has collapsed. Employers frequently argue that a delay in reporting undercuts the claim, and under the New York State Human Rights Law that argument no longer carries the weight it once did. Phillips & Associates handles owner-operated and founder-led matters regularly, and the structure of the company is usually the answer to that argument.

Can my employer force my case into arbitration?

Not necessarily. Under the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act, a person alleging a qualifying sexual harassment or sexual assault dispute may elect not to enforce a predispute arbitration agreement. If you signed an arbitration clause at hire, do not assume it controls.

Is quid pro quo harassment different from a hostile work environment?

Yes, though they often appear together. Quid pro quo involves a job benefit or consequence tied to sexual or romantic conduct. A hostile work environment involves conduct that changes the conditions you work under. One situation frequently produces both claims plus a retaliation claim, at different points on the same timeline.

Do I have to report to human resources before speaking with a lawyer?

No, and you can speak with a lawyer confidentially first. Human resources represents the employer. Whether, when, and how you report affects the evidence, what the employer is shown to have known, and your exposure to retaliation, which is why it is worth thinking through before you act rather than after.

My supervisor was demoted or left. Is my claim over?

No. The claim runs against the employer as well as, in many cases, the individual. What happened to the harasser afterward may affect the remedy but does not erase what occurred or the job consequences that followed.

Does this apply to men and to same-sex situations?

Yes. Federal, New York State, and New York City law protect employees regardless of sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation, and the analysis is the same. The question remains who held authority over the job.

When Should You Speak With a Lawyer?

Earlier than most people do, because the calls that arrive after a termination are harder than the calls that arrive before one. Options narrow once a job action has already been taken.

The moments that matter most are these. Before you report, so you can think through what to say and what to preserve. Before you sign a severance, separation, or non-disclosure agreement. After your schedule, assignments, or reviews changed following a refusal. And when you are simply not sure whether what is happening counts, which is the most common reason people call.

Speaking with a lawyer does not commit you to reporting internally or to filing anything.

Contact a New York Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment Lawyer

If someone who controls your job has tied that job to a personal relationship, you are not overreacting by asking questions about it.

Phillips & Associates practices employment law exclusively, represents employees only, and has never represented an employer. The firm serves employees across Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, Staten Island, Long Island, and Westchester, with additional offices in Princeton, Philadelphia, and Miami. Consultations are free and confidential. The firm works on a contingency basis, and there are no attorney fees unless the firm recovers compensation for you.

Call (866) 229-9441 or use the contact form on this page.

By William K. Phillips, Founder and Managing Partner, Phillips & Associates

William K. Phillips founded the National Plaintiffs' Summit on Sexual Harassment and Employment Discrimination and is a Forbes Business Council contributor. He is the author of The Holiday Party Survival Guide. His commentary on employment law has appeared in Forbes, USA Today, and Law360.